European Court of Human Rights: Article 10 case law, July to October 2015

31 10 2015

ARCHITECTURE STOCKIn the four months from 1 July to 31 October 2015, the Court of Human Rights handed down judgments in 11 cases where an Article 10 issue was central.  Violations of Article 10 were found in 7 of the 11 cases. The cases are as follows:

Morar v Romania (App no. 25217/06) [2015] ECHR 668 (French only), Judgment of 7 July 2015, Third Section.

The court held that there was a violation of Article 10 where the applicant journalist had a criminal conviction and civil liability imposed on him for allegedly defaming a political adviser to an electoral candidate, in the course of his work for a satirical weekly. We had a case comment by Joseph Williams.

Satakunnan Markkinaporssi Oy & Satamedia Oy v Finland (App no.  931/13) [2015] ECHR 713, Judgment of 21 July 2015. Fourth Section.

The court found that there was no violation of Article 10 where Finnish limited liability companies were banned from processing taxation data. We had a case comment by Dirk Voorhoof.

Dilipak v Turkey (App no. 29680/05) [2015] ECHR 795 (French only), Judgment of 15 September 2015. Second Section.

The court held that there had been a breach of Article 10 where he had been tried in criminal proceedings for criticising high-ranking members of the military.

Langner v Germany (App no. 14464/11)[2015] ECHR 803  Judgment of 17 September 2015. Fifth Section.

The court held that there was no breach of Article 10 where the applicant argued that his dismissal from his job in local government for criticising his superior at a staff meeting violated his freedom of expression.

Koutsoliontos and Pantazis v Greece (App nos. 54608/09 and 54590/09)[2015] ECHR 815. Judgment of 22 September 2015. First Section.

The court held that Article 10 had been violated where the applicants had been convicted for malicious defamation and insult as a result of the publication of a press article which had allegedly breached a politician’s honour and reputation. We had a case comment by Joseph Williams.

Belek & Anor v Turkey (App no. 44227/04)[2015] ECHR 848, Judgment of 6 October 2015. Second Section.

The court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 where the applicants had been convicted by a state security court for publishing articles containing a statement by an illegal armed organisation.

Müdür Duman v Turkey (App no. 15450/03)[2015] ECHR 834, Judgment of 6 October 2015, Second Section.

The court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 where a local political party leader had been convicted on account of illegal pictures and publications found in the office of his party.

Kharlamov v Russia (App no. 27447/07)[2015] ECHR 860, Judgment of 8 October 2015. First Section.

The court held that there was a violation of Article 10 where the applicant had defamation findings made against him. The applicant had spoken out against a university’s governing body due to shortcomings in the election procedure.

Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko & Ors v Bosnia and Herzegovina (App No. 17224/11)[2015] ECHR 873, Judgment of 13 October 2015. Fourth Section.

The court held there had been no violation of Article 10 with regards to defamation proceedings brought against four NGOs following the publication of a letter they had written to authorities complaining about misconduct of a radio editor. The court considered that the applicants had been negligent in simply reporting his conduct without making a reasonable effort to verify the allegations. A fair balance had been struck between the right to reputation and the right to report conduct irregularities.

 

Perinçek v Switzerland (App No 27510/08)[2015] ECHR 907. Judgment of 15 October 2015. Grand Chamber.

The conviction of the Chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party for publicly denying the existence of the genocide against the Armenian people was a violation of Article 10.  We had a case comment by Dirk Voorhoof.

Pentikainen v Finland (App no. 11882/10)[2015] ECHR 926. Judgment of 20 October 2015. Grand Chamber.

The interference with a press photographers right to freedom of expression because of disobeying a police order to leave the scene of a demonstration was not a violation of Article 10.  We had a case comment by Dirk Voorhoof.

These case summaries were provided by the Matrix Legal Support Service

 


Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: